Bury council and Rossendales

[Conniff]

That's a joke right, isn't it the main qualification of getting a job with Rossendales that you have 'no common sense'.

 

Was the bailiff aware he was filming his own disgraceful actions ?

 

They probably were, but if it was their normal practice it would not have concerned them.

 

 

Then again maybe not, isn't 'doh' another qualification to being recruited.

[Bailiff Advice]

I have not commented on this thread as it very quickly went 'off topic' about paying the council direct, 'proceeds' etc and with the greatest of respect, these are subjects that quite frankly are becoming tiresome.

 

The proposed publication of the report has been known about for the best part of the last two months and at a meeting that I was at last week, the LGO confirmed that Rossendales had received a prior copy of the report.

 

The events complained about were from BEFORE the new regulations took affect last April but that aside, the complaint is nonetheless very important. Thankfully, under the new regulations there is now a far greater responsibility on the enforcement agent to ensure that goods actually BELONG to the debtor given that this is clearly stated in the actual regulations. Prior to April 2014 it was always the case that bailiffs would be able to rely upon a well known Court of Appeal case that confirmed that bailiffs can assume that goods on the premises belong to the debtor. Thankfully that case along with many others that dealt with 'distress' were repealed last April.

 

At the meeting last week the Ombudsman made very clear the point that local authorities can sub contract out enforcement of a debt but cannot sub contract out THEIR responsibility to deal with complaints.

 

Following publication of this report there will of course now be a lot of discussion about 'body worn' camera's and in particular the length of time that footage is kept. There is a great deal of difficulty balancing the report with the official guidance from the Information Commissioners Office.

 

The 'One Year' review into the bailiff regulations ended last Friday and naturally I have referred to this report in my representation to the Ministry of Justice as it does raise a number of important points that may well impact on the review (which concerns any 'unintended consequences' of the regulations.

 

I intend making further comments about the report later today.

[Conniff]

Ok, you say the new regs ensure that goods belong to the debtor, so what about that other thread where it was ok for a bailiff to take Hire Purchase goods if there was enough equity in it ?

[Bailiff Advice]

Ok, you say the new regs ensure that goods belong to the debtor, so what about that other thread where it was ok for a bailiff to take Hire Purchase goods if there was enough equity in it ?

 

There can be no doubt at all that the 'intention' of the Ministry of Justice when introducing these regultions was that goods subject that are subject to Hire Purchase would be EXEMPT. Regrettably for all debtors, a highly inexperienced person (with an inability to understand the regulations) encouraged a debtor to hire him as a McKenzie friend to draft an injunction against a local authority. The result being that the case naturally went to a proper trial and the Judge closely examinded the regulations and ruled that there could be a 'beneficial interest' to the debtor in the hire purchase vehicle. It was up to the debtor to appeal. He will not do so (and indeed he is outside of the time limit). Accordingly, there is here is now a judgment that is likely to harm many debtors.

 

I cannot see that Ministry of Justice will amend this clause (beneficial interest) given that it is of huge relevance to other goods (in particular property).

[Conniff]

So if it is unlikely to be amended, then bailiffs have full carte blanche to take everything and anything and all debtors rights have been recinded.

[Bailiff Advice]

So if it is unlikely to be amended, then bailiffs have full carte blanche to take everything and anything and all debtors rights have been recinded.

 

Clarity is desperatley needed about 'beneficial interest' and hopefully this will be addressed when the results of the 'One Year' review are made public later in the year.

[Bailiff Advice]

Ok, you say the new regs ensure that goods belong to the debtor, so what about that other thread where it was ok for a bailiff to take Hire Purchase goods if there was enough equity in it ?

 

I have just been sent a very detailed analysis of this case by John Kruse which I will read later and will update the thread once I have done so.

[E Munch]

If that is his BSB 37 it is not as detailed or conclusive as you might hope.

 

 

Schedule 12 S. 10 says “An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor.”

 

 

Under S.3 of Schedule 12:-

 

 

 

• Goods of the debtor are goods in which the debtor has an interest .
  
• goods are property of any description other than land and
  
• interest is a beneficial interest.
  

 

 

So Schedule 12 is saying if the debtor has a beneficial interest in goods an EA can take control of those goods. John Kruse's assertion that the actual goods are not available, only the interest in them is, therefore, surely just untrue. As I've said before what we need is a definition of "beneficial interest" and sadly this is not it. He does not even mention "beneficial."

[Peterbard]

I think that as far as HP is concerned there is no interest in the goods, as they do not belong in any part to the debtor.

 

The situation is further complicated by the restriction placed on the creditor from repossessing the vehicle on their behalf, section 90 of the consumer credit act prohibits it.

 

I know JK raises this point in several of his articles.

 

Personally i think the beneficial interest has more to do with assignment of rights to the goods under the LOPA 1925. Otherwise the debtor could use the equity available and issue a charge raising capital on it, even though the property were bound.

[Bailiff Advice]

I think that as far as HP is concerned there is no interest in the goods, as they do not belong in any part to the debtor.

 

The situation is further complicated by the restriction placed on the creditor from repossessing the vehicle on their behalf, section 90 of the consumer credit act prohibits it.

 

I know JK raises this point in several of his articles.

 

Personally i think the beneficial interest has more to do with assignment of rights to the goods under the LOPA 1925. Otherwise the debtor could use the equity available and issue a charge raising capital on it, even though the property were bound.

 

I know that this is subject that you have a lot of experience in so I will send you a copy of JK's analysis in a few moments. He would not want it published on the forum but I am sure that he would have no objections to me sending a copy to you.

 

PS: Conniff....can you pm me an email address.

[Peterbard]

Very kind, I will be very interested to read it

[caledfwlch]

We need some sort of Test Case or instructions altering EA behaviour regarding third party goods.

 

Most Householders don't have receipts for much of their stuff, unless it is new - I don't have receipts for anything in my flat, and a lot is second hand, so if an EA was stood in here because a homeless mate with a debt was staying here, I would be unable to prove ownership!

 

In such a case, the EA surely should step back and allow the third party to get to the court and do a stat dec? Certainly In the situations this thread is about, where it is obvious the Debtor wont own everything, as they are only lodging at the address, and the Householder can prove they are the Householder, logic in that situation dictates that the debtor wont own everything there.

[brassnecked]

Still won't stop he EA trying it on though Caled, although if someone is sofa surfing they could also do a stat dec to that effect stating they own diddly squat as they are not a permanent resident at the address so no property etc. might work.